Hey speaking of false advertising, your entire operation sweetums.
Selective memory and selective assessment of the law when choosing not to prosecute repeat offenders is absolutely disgusting and abhorent.
Oh by the way, your 350 million gotcha on Trump? It'll be fought in court to a lesser amount, like anyone sane would do.
But let's say he's gotta pay the 350 million. That sounds like a ton of cash. More that my entire neighborhood would make in their collective lifetimes.
Trump is a multi billionaire. hundred dollar bills are like pennies to him. If you factor that in, you just made a man worth that much money pay 35k in fees.
Plus, he's gonna be out for you now. You think you're the only one who knows how to work a system? He's made billions, he's not dumb.
Trump is a multi billionaire. hundred dollar bills are like pennies to him. If you factor that in, you just made a man worth that much money pay 35k in fees.
It's not that simple or easy for Trump (or any billionaire). When a person attains that level of wealth, much of it is in holdings with varying degrees of liquidity—stocks, properties, fancy jewels, art, private jets, etc. I don't know the state of Trump's liquidity, but enough big judgments like this are not as simply shrugged off as going "okay, 6,000,000,000 - 350,000,000 = 5,650,000,000 left in my pocket, no big deal."
Especially if, for example, they actually manage to get this bullshit to stick and then they use it as precedent to bring charges against him selling off assets to pay the first fine. The whole premise of the suit is that Trump and his bank independently agreed that a certain property was adequate collateral for a certain amount of money. The bank agreed to that, Trump agreed to that, and it didn't even end up being relevant because the loan was paid back in full and the bank never had to take the collateral. That should have been a done deal, private, and over with.
Somehow, according to this lawsuit, the state can retroactively decide what is or is not a fair valuation for a property, and then they can take action on behalf of the entity who never felt defrauded, and slap on a fine to payable to the state—not the victim, because there isn't one—in restitution for a private crime that never actually happened. If that stays up, if that logic is accepted, what's the barrier to following it up by saying "well, you sold this property for $350m to pay off the fine, but we say it actually was only worth $100m, so we're going to sue you for that now"? There is none, it's a kangaroo court all the way.
I'm not saying Trump is finished or that this fine is a settled matter, but if we do operate from a hypothetical of "worst case scenario, he's gonna pay the fine," I think that's a much worse worst-case than you realize.
Hey speaking of false advertising, your entire operation sweetums.
Selective memory and selective assessment of the law when choosing not to prosecute repeat offenders is absolutely disgusting and abhorent.
Oh by the way, your 350 million gotcha on Trump? It'll be fought in court to a lesser amount, like anyone sane would do.
But let's say he's gotta pay the 350 million. That sounds like a ton of cash. More that my entire neighborhood would make in their collective lifetimes.
Trump is a multi billionaire. hundred dollar bills are like pennies to him. If you factor that in, you just made a man worth that much money pay 35k in fees.
Plus, he's gonna be out for you now. You think you're the only one who knows how to work a system? He's made billions, he's not dumb.
It's not that simple or easy for Trump (or any billionaire). When a person attains that level of wealth, much of it is in holdings with varying degrees of liquidity—stocks, properties, fancy jewels, art, private jets, etc. I don't know the state of Trump's liquidity, but enough big judgments like this are not as simply shrugged off as going "okay, 6,000,000,000 - 350,000,000 = 5,650,000,000 left in my pocket, no big deal."
Especially if, for example, they actually manage to get this bullshit to stick and then they use it as precedent to bring charges against him selling off assets to pay the first fine. The whole premise of the suit is that Trump and his bank independently agreed that a certain property was adequate collateral for a certain amount of money. The bank agreed to that, Trump agreed to that, and it didn't even end up being relevant because the loan was paid back in full and the bank never had to take the collateral. That should have been a done deal, private, and over with.
Somehow, according to this lawsuit, the state can retroactively decide what is or is not a fair valuation for a property, and then they can take action on behalf of the entity who never felt defrauded, and slap on a fine to payable to the state—not the victim, because there isn't one—in restitution for a private crime that never actually happened. If that stays up, if that logic is accepted, what's the barrier to following it up by saying "well, you sold this property for $350m to pay off the fine, but we say it actually was only worth $100m, so we're going to sue you for that now"? There is none, it's a kangaroo court all the way.
I'm not saying Trump is finished or that this fine is a settled matter, but if we do operate from a hypothetical of "worst case scenario, he's gonna pay the fine," I think that's a much worse worst-case than you realize.
Yup. New York is going to reap the whirlwind from this decision, big money is going to flee that state rapidly. It has already started.
Wow, I knew it was horrible, but I guess I expected the depths to stop at some point.
It's just suck all the way down, and it gets worse every time you look.
It seems to me it's entirely bullshit, and I hope it wakes people up, because this is going to be abused hardcore.